Rosh Hashanah 5
מָה חַג הַמַּצּוֹת טָעוּן לִינָה — אַף חַג הַסּוּכּוֹת טָעוּן לִינָה.
Just as the festival of Passover requires remaining overnight in Jerusalem, and only on the following day may one return home, so too, the festival of Sukkot requires remaining overnight in Jerusalem before returning home.
וְהָתָם מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וּפָנִיתָ בַבֹּקֶר וְהָלַכְתָּ לְאֹהָלֶיךָ״.
The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to Passover, from where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara explains: As it is written about the Paschal offering: “And you shall roast and eat it in the place which the Lord your God shall choose; and you shall turn in the morning, and go to your tents” (Deuteronomy 16:7).
וְתַנָּא קַמָּא וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן (בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר) — תַּשְׁלוּמִין לַעֲצֶרֶת מְנָא לְהוּ?
The Gemara asks: And the first tanna of the baraita and Rabbi Shimon, who learn from the verse: “On the festival of Passover, and on the festival of Shavuot, and on the festival of Sukkot” (Deuteronomy 16:16), that one transgresses the prohibition against delaying only after three Festivals have passed, from where do they derive the halakha that the Shavuot offering has redress for seven days?
נָפְקָא לְהוּ מִדְּתָנֵי רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל. דְּתָנֵי רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל: אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה מְנֵה יָמִים וְקַדֵּשׁ חֹדֶשׁ, מְנֵה יָמִים וְקַדֵּשׁ עֲצֶרֶת. מָה חֹדֶשׁ לִמְנוּיָו — אַף עֲצֶרֶת לִמְנוּיָו.
The Gemara answers: They derive it from that which Rabba bar Shmuel taught, as Rabba bar Shmuel taught: The Torah states to count the days, as it is stated: “A month of days” (Numbers 11:20), and then sanctify a new month with offerings. And the Torah also said to count the days from Passover, as it is stated: “You shall count fifty days” (Leviticus 23:16), and then sanctify the festival of Shavuot with offerings. Just as the new month is sanctified for the unit of time by which it is counted, i.e., for one day, so too, Shavuot is sanctified for the unit of time by which it is counted, i.e., for one full week, as it is stated: “Seven complete weeks shall there be” (Leviticus 23:15).
אֵימָא עֲצֶרֶת חַד יוֹמָא? אָמַר רָבָא: אַטּוּ עֲצֶרֶת יוֹמֵי מָנִינַן, שָׁבוּעֵי לָא מָנִינַן? וְהָאָמַר מָר: מִצְוָה לְמִימְנֵי יוֹמֵי, וּמִצְוָה לְמִימְנֵי שָׁבוּעֵי. וְעוֹד: ״חַג שָׁבוּעוֹת״ כְּתִיב.
The Gemara asks: But if so, say that the Shavuot offering may be redressed for only one day, as Shavuot is determined by a count of fifty days from Passover. How, then, is it known that the Shavuot offering has seven days for redress? Rava said: Is that to say that we count only days until Shavuot, but we do not also count weeks? But didn’t the Master say: It is a mitzva to count fifty days, and it is also a mitzva to count seven weeks, which teaches that the Festival peace-offering brought on Shavuot may be sacrificed for an entire week. And further, it is written in the verse: “The festival of weeks [Shavuot],” which teaches that it is a Festival that is established through a count of weeks.
וּפֶסַח בַּר מִיקְרַב בִּרְגָלִים הוּא? פֶּסַח זִימְנָא קְבִיעָא לֵיהּ, אִי אַקְרְבֵיהּ — אַקְרְבֵיהּ, וְאִי לָא אַקְרְבֵיהּ — אִידְּחִי לֵיהּ!
§ It was taught in the baraita that one becomes liable for transgressing the prohibition against delaying if he delays bringing the Paschal lamb. The Gemara expresses its astonishment about this ruling: But is the Paschal lamb fit to be sacrificed on the other Festivals? The Paschal lamb has a fixed time to be brought, on the fourteenth of Nisan; if one sacrificed it then, he has sacrificed it, but if he did not sacrifice it then, it is excluded forever from any use.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: פֶּסַח כְּדִי נַסְבֵהּ.
Rav Ḥisda said: The Paschal lamb is cited here for no reason [kedi]; that is to say, the prohibition against delaying is not relevant to the Paschal lamb, and the latter was mentioned in the baraita only because firstborn offerings, animal tithes, and the Paschal lamb are often grouped together.
רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: מַאי ״פֶּסַח״ — שַׁלְמֵי פֶסַח.
Rav Sheshet said a different explanation: What is meant here by a Paschal lamb? It is the peace-offering that is brought in place of a Paschal lamb. If a lamb that had been set aside to be sacrificed as a Paschal offering was lost, and its owner took another lamb and sacrificed that as his Paschal lamb, and afterward the first animal was found, it must now be brought as a peace-offering. This offering is subject to all the halakhot of the prohibition against delaying.
אִי הָכִי — הַיְינוּ שְׁלָמִים! תְּנָא שְׁלָמִים הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת פֶּסַח, וּתְנָא שְׁלָמִים הַבָּאִין מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָן. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּמֵחֲמַת פֶּסַח קָאָתוּ,
The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as the peace-offerings listed earlier, and it is still redundant. The Gemara answers: The baraita taught the halakha with regard to peace-offerings brought in place of a Paschal lamb, and it also taught the halakha with regard to peace-offerings brought independently. The reason for this repetition is that it might enter your mind to say: Since the peace-offerings are brought in place of a Paschal lamb,
כְּפֶסַח דָּמוּ — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
they are considered like the Paschal lamb itself, and so one transgresses the prohibition against delaying as soon as one Festival has passed. The baraita therefore teaches us that this is not so, as even this type of peace-offering is treated like the other offerings, and there is no liability until three Festivals have passed.
מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי תִדּוֹר נֶדֶר״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא נֶדֶר. נְדָבָה מִנַּיִן?
§ The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived that all the offerings and vows listed above in the baraita are subject to the prohibition against delaying? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “When you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay paying it; for the Lord your God will surely require it from you, and it would be sin in you” (Deuteronomy 23:22). From the words “when you shall vow a vow,” I have derived only the halakha in the case of a vow-offering, where one says: I undertake to bring an offering, thereby assuming personal responsibility to bring an offering, no matter what happens to any particular animal. But as for the case of a gift-offering, one says: I undertake to bring this animal as an offering. He assumes responsibility only to bring that particular animal, without assuming a general responsibility to bring an offering. From where do I derive that this, too, is included in the prohibition against delaying?
נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״נֶדֶר״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״אִם נֶדֶר אוֹ נְדָבָה״. מָה לְהַלָּן — נְדָבָה עִמּוֹ, אַף כָּאן — נְדָבָה עִמּוֹ.
The Gemara now analyzes the words of Deuteronomy 23:22 cited above and looks at each component. It is stated here: “Vow,” and it is stated elsewhere: “But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow or a gift-offering” (Leviticus 7:16). Just as there a gift-offering is together with the vow and is governed by the same halakha, so too, here, a gift-offering is together with the vow and is governed by the same halakha.
״לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״ — אֵלּוּ הַדָּמִין הָעֲרָכִין וְהַחֲרָמִין וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת. ״לֹא תְאַחֵר לְשַׁלְּמוֹ״ — הוּא וְלֹא חִילּוּפָיו. ״כִּי דָרוֹשׁ יִדְרְשֶׁנּוּ״ — אֵלּוּ חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת עוֹלוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים.
The verse continues: “To the Lord your God.” This is referring to various types of consecrations that are allocated to Temple maintenance: Assessments, valuations, dedications, and consecrations. “You shall not delay paying it” teaches that one violates the prohibition against delaying if he is late in paying it, but not if he is late in paying its substitute, as will be explained below. “For the Lord your God will surely require it from you” comes to include all other things that one is required to bring; these are sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings.
״ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״ — אֵלּוּ צְדָקוֹת וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת וּבְכוֹר. ״מֵעִמָּךְ״ — זֶה לֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה. ״וְהָיָה בְךָ חֵטְא״ — וְלֹא בְּקׇרְבָּנְךָ חֵטְא.
The words in the verse: “For the Lord your God” are an apparently superfluous phrase that in fact comes to include additional things in the prohibition; these are vows of charity, and tithes, and firstborn offerings. “From you”; this comes to include other items that one gives of one’s own for the sake of a mitzva, i.e., gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce of the corner of the field. “And it would be sin in you”; this teaches that the sin of delaying would be in you, but there would be no sin in your offering, i.e., the offering is not disqualified due to the delay.
אָמַר מָר: ״לֹא תְאַחֵר לְשַׁלְּמוֹ״ — הוּא וְלֹא חִילּוּפָיו. חִילּוּפֵי מַאי? אִי חִילּוּפֵי עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים — מִקְרָב קָרְבִי.
The Gemara clarifies certain points in the baraita. The Master said, citing the baraita: “You shall not delay paying it” teaches that one violates the prohibition if he is late in paying it, i.e., the original offering, but not if he is late in paying its substitute, i.e., an animal that substituted for his offering. The Gemara asks: A substitute for what offering? If you say that the baraita is speaking of a substitute for a burnt-offering or a peace-offering, i.e., if an animal was set aside to serve as a burnt-offering or a peace-offering and it was lost, and a substitute was set aside in its place, and then the original animal was found and sacrificed, in that case the substitute is sacrificed just like the first, and so it is certainly subject to the prohibition against delaying.
אִי חִילּוּפֵי חַטָּאת, לְמִיתָה אָזְלָא. אֶלָּא מַאי חִילּוּפָיו — חִילּוּפֵי תוֹדָה.
If the baraita is referring to a substitute for a sin-offering, i.e., if an animal was set aside as a sin-offering and it was lost, and a substitute was set aside in its place, and then the original animal was found and sacrificed, in that case the substitute is left to die, as it has become disqualified and can no longer be sacrificed on the altar. This being the case, there is no reason to say that it is subject to the prohibition against delaying. Rather, what is the substitute referred to in the baraita? It is the substitute for a thanks-offering.
דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: תּוֹדָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בִּתְמוּרָתָהּ, וּמֵתָה אַחַת מֵהֶן — חֲבֶרְתָּהּ אֵין לָהּ תַּקָּנָה.
As Rabbi Ḥiyya taught in a baraita: In the case of a thanks-offering that became mixed up with its substitute, i.e., one substituted an animal for one designated as a thanks-offering, in which case both animals are considered consecrated, and then the original animal and its substitute became mixed up with each other, and one of them died, there is no remedy for the other one, and so it must be left to graze until it becomes blemished.
הֵיכִי לֶיעְבֵּיד? לַיקְרְבַהּ וְלַיקְרֵיב לֶחֶם בַּהֲדַהּ — דִּלְמָא תְּמוּרָה הִיא. לַיקְרְבַהּ בְּלָא לֶחֶם — דִּלְמָא תּוֹדָה הִיא.
The Gemara explains: What could he have done with the remaining animal? If you say that he may sacrifice it and sacrifice the bread with it, i.e., the forty loaves of bread that are brought as a meal-offering together with the animal component of the thanks-offering, perhaps this animal is not the one that had originally been set aside but rather the substitute, and the rule is that the substitute is sacrificed like the thanks-offering itself, but without bread. If you say that he should sacrifice it without bread, perhaps it is the original thanks-offering, which must be brought with bread. This, then, is the substitute that the baraita says is not subject to the prohibition against delaying.
וְהָא כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו בַּת הַקְרָבָה הִיא, קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי לְמָה לִי?
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But since the animal is not fit to be sacrificed, why do I need a special verse to exclude it from the prohibition against delaying? In any case it cannot be sacrificed on the altar, and so there is no need to state that it is not included in the prohibition.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לְעוֹלָם לְמַעוֹטֵי חִילּוּפֵי עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁעָבְרוּ עָלָיו שְׁנֵי רְגָלִים וְהוּמַם, וְחִילְּלוֹ עַל אַחֵר, וְעָבַר עָלָיו רֶגֶל אֶחָד. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּמִכֹּחַ קַמָּא קָאָתֵי — כְּמַאן דְּעָבְרוּ עָלָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים דָּמֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Rav Sheshet said: Actually, you can say that the verse comes to exclude the substitute for a burnt-offering or a peace-offering. And here we are dealing with a case where two Festivals already passed from the time that one had consecrated the original animal but did not bring it to the altar, and it became blemished, and he redeemed it by replacing it with another animal, as required. And then another Festival passed and he did not yet bring the substitute to the altar. In that case, it might enter your mind to say that since this second animal comes in place of the first one, as it was consecrated as a substitute for it, it should be considered as one for which three Festivals have already passed; therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not so. Rather, the three Festivals are counted from the time of the replacement animal’s consecration.
וּלְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו רֶגֶל אֶחָד עוֹבֵר בְּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמַר רָבָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוּמַם בְּתוֹךְ הָרֶגֶל, וְחִילְּלוֹ, וְעָבַר עָלָיו הָרֶגֶל. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּמִכֹּחַ קַמָּא קָאָתֵי — כְּמַאן דְּעָבַר עֲלֵיהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ רֶגֶל דָּמֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: This answers the question of which substitute the baraita is referring to according to the opinion of the Rabbis, but according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: Once even the first Festival has passed one transgresses the mitzva: You shall not delay, what is there to say here? Rava said: Here, we are dealing with a case where the original animal became blemished during the Festival, and one redeemed it by replacing it with another animal, and the Festival passed without that animal being sacrificed. In that case, it might enter your mind to say that since this second animal comes in place of the first one, and the first one had already been consecrated before the Festival, it should be considered as one for which an entire Festival has already passed, so that he transgresses the prohibition against delaying; therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not the case. Rather, an entire Festival must pass for the replacement animal.
״וְהָיָה בְּךָ חֵטְא״, וְלֹא בְּקׇרְבָּנְךָ חֵטְא. וְהָא מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא? מִדַּאֲחֵרִים נָפְקָא, דְּתַנְיָא, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: יָכוֹל יְהֵא בְּכוֹר שֶׁעָבְרָה שְׁנָתוֹ כִּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין, וְיִפָּסֵל —
§ It was taught in the baraita: The verse states: “And it would be sin in you,” which teaches that the sin of delaying would be sin in you, but there would be no sin in your offering, i.e., the offering would not become disqualified due to the delay. The Gemara asks: Is it from here that this is learned? But isn’t it derived from the statement of Aḥerim? As it is taught in a baraita: Aḥerim say that one might have thought that a firstborn animal after its first year passed, during which time it was not sacrificed, should be like consecrated things that have become disqualified due to a blemish, and so it is disqualified from being brought to the altar.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאָכַלְתָּ לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ תִּירוֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ וּבְכוֹרוֹת בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנֶךָ״, מַקִּישׁ בְּכוֹר לְמַעֲשֵׂר: מָה מַעֲשֵׂר אֵינוֹ נִפְסָל מִשָּׁנָה לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ, אַף בְּכוֹר אֵינוֹ נִפְסָל מִשָּׁנָה לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ.
Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place which He shall choose to place His name there, the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborns of your herds, and of your flocks” (Deuteronomy 14:23), thereby juxtaposing a firstborn animal to the tithe of grain. Just as tithe is not disqualified by being kept over from one year to the next, as it is explicitly stated that tithes may be eaten until the end of three years, so too, a firstborn animal is not disqualified by being kept over from one year to the next, despite the delay in being brought to the altar. Therefore, there is another source for the halakha that the offering itself does not become disqualified even if it is brought late.
אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּכוֹר, דְּלָאו בַּר הַרְצָאָה הוּא, אֲבָל קׇדָשִׁים, דִּבְנֵי הַרְצָאָה נִינְהוּ — אֵימָא לָא לִירַצּוֹ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: The first derivation cited was necessary. Had this halakha been learned only from the case of a firstborn animal, it might enter your mind to say that this halakha that the offering is not disqualified applies only to a firstborn, which is not for appeasement, i.e., it does not come to atone for any sin, not even for the neglect of a positive mitzva, but is merely a gift for the priest. But as for other consecrated animals, which appease, their role being to atone for the sins of their owners, one might say that they do not appease when brought late. Therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not so. Rather, the other offerings are also not disqualified when brought late.
וְאַכַּתִּי,
The Gemara asks further: But still, it may be argued that this derivation is unnecessary,
